Increasing standing tolerance in office workers with standing-induced back pain

Nelson-Wong, Erika; Gallagher, Kaitlin M.; Johnson, Elizabeth; Antonioli, Clare; Ferguson, Abigail; Harris, Staci; Johnson, Holly L.; Miller, James Blake

doi:10.1080/00140139.2020.1761034

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Questionnaires that have been previously used to assess sedentary behaviours in office working adults include, but are not limited to, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ; Ekelund et al, 2006 ), the Workforce Sitting Questionnaire ( Aittasalo et al, 2017 ), the Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire (SBQ; Rosenberg et al, 2010 ) and the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ; Chau et al, 2012 ). Amongst these, the OSPAQ has been used in an array of populations such as university students ( Dillon et al, 2021 ), university employees ( Headley et al, 2018 ), sedentary obese individuals ( Lohana and Yadav, 2020 ), health professionals ( Zafiropoulos et al, 2019 ) and of relevance, office workers ( Nelson-Wong et al, 2020 ; Rollo and Prapavessis, 2020 ; Urda et al, 2017 ), to measure time spent sitting, standing, walking and perfoming heavy labour tasks during work hours. The OSPAQ measures sitting and standing as separate behaviours, thus, making it an ideal self-report tool to properly classify sedentary behaviour separate from physical inactivity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ) for home-based office workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic: A secondary analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ) for home-based office workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic: A secondary analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…PDs have greater medio-lateral (ML) COP fidget frequency 21 farther location of COP to the heel during the first 15 min compared to NPDs 21 , lower antro-posterior (AP) COP and COP ML range, lower Velocity AP and Velocity ML range 31 , and fewer large body weight transfers (30% BW) during the first 15 min of standing 18 . They also increased their large BWS frequency more consistently compared with NPDs 43 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Using sit-stand desk, all PDs in intervention (12-week graded standing exposure using a sit-stand desk and home exercise) and control group (sit-stand desk without instruction or home exercise) had decreased LBP regardless of intervention (Day 1 average VAS = 10.43 ± 1.65 mm, Day 2 average VAS = 2.3 ± 4.0 mm, Day 1 maximum VAS = 21.9 ± 3.73 mm, Day 2 maximum VAS = 5.1 ± 6.9 mm) 43 . Also, a 124-min of standing work with seated breaks at a 3:1 stand-sit ratio with increasing durations from 3:1 min to 48:16 min could successfully reduce LBPs in PDs to the level of NPDs’, with mean pain scores of 13 mm which was only slightly higher than the clinical LBP threshold of 10 mm 34 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Table 1 summarizes the reported demographics of PDs and NPDs from all studies. A series of random-effects models were used to analyze age 9 , 10 , 13 , 18 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 42 – 44 , 46 , 47 , 51 , 54 , 56 – 58 , 60 , 61 , height 10 , 23 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 51 , 54 , 56 – 58 , 60 , 61 , weight 10 , 13 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 51 , 54 , 56 – 58 , 60 , 61 , BMI 9 , 10 , 13 , 18 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 42 – 44 ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distinctive characteristics of prolonged standing low back pain developers’ and the associated risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis

Khoshroo

Seidi

Bayattork

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pain developers (PDs) are considered a pre-clinical low back pain (LBP) population at risk of clinical LBP development and thus exacting great social and economic costs. Therefore, it is necessary to comprehensively investigate their distinctive characteristics and the risk factors of standing-induced LBP based on which appropriate preventive measures can be planned. Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases as well as Google Scholar and ProQuest were systematically searched from inception through 14 July 2022 using a combination of terms relevant to ‘standing’ and ‘LBP’. Studies with low risk of bias in English and Persian using a methodological quality scoring system were deemed eligible for inclusion if they were laboratory studies using prolonged standing duration greater than 42 min to classify adult PDs and non-pain developers (NPDs) without a history of LBP. PDs were compared with NPDs in demographics, biomechanical, and psychological outcomes. Weighted or standardized mean differences, and Hedge’s g were generated to determine the pooled effect sizes using STATA software version 17. 52 papers and theses involving 1070 participants (528 PDs and 542 NPDs) were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review 33 of which were used in meta-analyses. Significant differences between PDs and NPDs in terms of movement patterns, muscular, postural, psychological, structural, and anthropometric variables were evidenced. The following factors were found to have a statistically significant association with standing-induced LBP: lumbar fidgets (Hedge’s g − 0.72, 95% CI − 1.35 to − 0.08, P = 0.03), lumbar lordosis in participants over 25 years (Hedge’s g 2.75, 95% CI 1.89–3.61, P < 0.001), AHAbd test (WMD 0.7, 95% CI 0.36–1.05, P < 0.001), GMed co-activation (Hedge’s g 4.24, 95% CI 3.18–5.3, P < 0.001), and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (WMD 2.85, 95% CI 0.51–5.19, P = 0.02). Altered motor control displayed in AHAbd test and higher lumbar lordosis in individuals over 25 years seem to be probable risk factors for standing-induced LBP. In order to detect standing-induced LBP risk factors, future researchers should investigate the association of the reported distinctive characteristics to the standing-induced LBP and that whether they are manipulable through various interventions.

show abstract

“…EMG may reflect the demand for muscle tissue, higher demand being associated with high force applied [69]. Another well-known method for obtaining body force is by using a force plate and foot plant combined with motion capture technologies [32,33,41,76]. However, this method only can obtain the body force for certain tasks.…”

Section: Forcementioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of Kinetic and Kinematic Variables in Ergonomic Risk Assessment Using Motion Capture Simulation: A Review

Yunus

Jaafar

Mohamed

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are among the most common disorders in any work sector and industry. Ergonomic risk assessment can reduce the risk of WMSDs. Motion capture that can provide accurate and real-time quantitative data has been widely used as a tool for ergonomic risk assessment. However, most ergonomic risk assessments that use motion capture still depend on the traditional ergonomic risk assessment method, focusing on qualitative data. Therefore, this article aims to provide a view on the ergonomic risk assessment and apply current motion capture technology to understand classical mechanics of physics that include velocity, acceleration, force, and momentum in ergonomic risk assessment. This review suggests that using motion capture technologies with kinetic and kinematic variables, such as velocity, acceleration, and force, can help avoid inconsistency and develop more reliable results in ergonomic risk assessment. Most studies related to the physical measurement conducted with motion capture prefer to use non-optical motion capture because it is a low-cost system and simple experimental setup. However, the present review reveals that optical motion capture can provide more accurate data.

show abstract

Increasing standing tolerance in office workers with standing-induced back pain

Cited by 12 publications

References 49 publications

Validity of the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ) for home-based office workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic: A secondary analysis

Validity of the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ) for home-based office workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic: A secondary analysis

Distinctive characteristics of prolonged standing low back pain developers’ and the associated risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis

Implementation of Kinetic and Kinematic Variables in Ergonomic Risk Assessment Using Motion Capture Simulation: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About